Identity politics is bad, goes the common refrain. It leads to divisions in society whereby minority groups compete with one another and encourages governments to address communities rather than citizens. Khadijah Elshayyal seeks to dispel this notion in her book that charts the development of Muslim identity politics in Britain during the latter half of the twentieth century. With a focus on the theme of freedom of expression, she develops the notion of an “equality gap”—the idea (real and perceived) that Muslims do not have recourse to the same level of equality under the law (especially anti-discrimination provisions). This gap, she argues, was the strongest source of legitimacy for the representative groups she studies, in particular the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). By utilizing oral history and interviews with representatives of both Muslim and Jewish community representatives, Elshayyal compares the fortunes of identity politics of both minority groups in British society. Such a comparison is fruitful because, as Elshayyal points out, the achievements of the Jewish community and groups such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD) have provided inspiration for their Muslim counterparts.

Elshayyal sets the scene for her ongoing discussion of Muslim identity politics by highlighting the importance of freedom of expression in British politics and political thought while reminding the reader that there have always been legal restrictions on this expression. She then charts identity politics from the 1960s to the 1980s and shows how the United Kingdom's (UK) race relations approach influenced the shape of Muslim identity politics. As religion, unlike race or gender, was perceived as a chosen identity, there was (and still is) a legitimate question as to whether “the wider political community [should] be required to assist a religious citizen in bearing any consequences of their belief” (49). While racial identity politics was an important development toward equality for minorities in the UK, there was no space for religion. This did not stop the formation of various Muslim representative groups in this period, however, notably the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (1963), the Muslim Educational Trust (1966), and the Union of Muslim Organisations (1970).

The fourth chapter of the book deals with the crucial period from the late 1980s to the watershed of September 11, 2011 when Muslim activists began to persistently present claims that were designed to decrease this “equality gap”. This was prompted by the Rushdie Affair, where Muslims demanded that they should be covered by the same blasphemy law that protected Christian sensibilities and that religious groups should also be protected from discrimination and hate speech, particularly given that this protection was eventually accorded to Jews and Sikhs. Drawing on the work of Tariq Modood, Elshayyal shows why Muslims could be considered as facing a specific type of prejudice and discrimination that would warrant them being classed as an “ethno-religious group”.

By the turn of the century, Muslim identity politics had also “resulted in a number of tangible achievements” (106), including funding for Muslim schools and getting a question about religious affiliation on the census. The narrative then takes the reader from 9/11 to the other key juncture for British Muslims in the contemporary era—the terrorist attack in London on July 7, 2005. Elshayyal demonstrates the difficulty faced by an organization such as the MCB which seeks to represent its grassroots members but also maintain the ear of government. In the realm of government foreign policy, which many British Muslims disagreed with, the MCB “could not command credibility by diplomatically sitting on the fence” (120). Here, I feel that Elshayyal could have done more to draw out some of the internal discussions and dilemmas the organization was faced with and exploit some of the archival and documentary material to show how positions were reached.

The chronological narrative is continued in Chapter 6 which takes the reader from 2005 to the return of the Conservative Party to power in 2010. Much of this chapter describes the increasingly tougher anti-terrorism measures that were brought in and highlights some high-profile cases that were judged under the Terrorism Act of 2006. Here the book loses its focus on identity politics somewhat, even if it is clear that the securitization agenda necessarily had repercussions on subsequent demands for equality. What is more interesting and novel, however, is the way Elshayyal demonstrates a maturing of the politics of the MCB which recognized that “in campaigning for Muslim interests in a modern and pluralist Britain, it needed to understand and even empathise with the interests of other groups, even if they differed on fundamental issues” (169). The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition signaled a closing of political opportunities for Muslim identity politics and Chapter 7 looks at what are now considered to be the most pressing issues for Muslim identity politics: Islamophobia and the Prevent strategy. Whereas in the latter part of the twentieth century, the equality gap was clearly about freedom of expression and discrimination, it now relates to security measures.

Overall Muslim Identity Politics is an engaging and well-written book that provides the reader with an understanding of how Muslim identity politics in Britain has developed over the course of 50 years. It provides an important reminder that Muslims have been politically organizing qua Muslims as early as the 1960s even if most of the scholarship focuses on the period since 1989. Although primarily a work of contemporary history, it will also be of interest to scholars of religion and politics across the social sciences, and in particular those who specialize in religious minorities in Europe. Its most important contribution is the concept of an “equality gap”—which could potentially be harnessed for other studies of minorities and political engagement. Elshayyal convincingly argues that there will be no end to Muslim identity politics as long as significant elements in society “continue to express hostility, distaste or hatred towards Muslims” (202). Although this outlook is bleak, the book also reminds us that the equality gap has narrowed and that a number of achievements have been made. There is certainly plenty of scope for further research into this area, both in the rest of Europe as well as other Western nations with significant Muslim minorities.